Ship of Fools: 350 Years of the 1662 Prayer Book

Thread: 350 Years of the 1662 Prayer Book Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024884

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Just a thought - how are Shipmates celebrating this auspicious occasion? The Prayer Book Society here in the UK is making much of it, but ISTM that interest in the 1662 BCP is...er....somewhat marginal, shall we say?

Our Place had a Deanery Evensong back in June - about 40 peeps attended, and, with a scratch choir of four male voices, it was a lovely service, appreciated by all. This coming Sunday, we are replacing our monthly Evensong with a 1662 BCP Holy Communion (said - but with 3 hymns by George Herbert). I confidently anticipate a congregation of 12 or so, though the Holy Spirit - given Her unpreditcability - may well decide otherwise.......

Do any other Shipmates (whether in the UK or elsewhere) have other tales to tell?

Ian J.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

I went to the Prayer Book Society celebratory Evensong at St Paul's Cathedral on 2 May. The Prince and de iure Princess of Wales were also there. The Bishop of London preached (after the Office of course) and the A. of C. gave the blessing.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
This coming Sunday, we are replacing our monthly Evensong with a 1662 BCP Holy Communion (said - but with 3 hymns by George Herbert).

Tat report please! Scarf and hood and North-end I presume.

Incidentally our diocese had a day conference on liturgy in February which concluded with a BCP Holy Communion celebrated by the suffragan bishop in black chimere and (anachronistically) purple stole. He stood at the north side (not end) of the Table which was placed lengthways between two facing ranks of seating.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I suppose I should go on a hike to my nearest five mile chapel. O, you did not mean that part of 1662.

Jengie

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Er...... [Confused]

Re tat - eastward-facing, I suspect, and I daresay Father will vest in alb and chasuble as usual (and as per the rubrics of 1549...). A simple said service - one server, no incense, and three hymns. Cake afterwards!

Ian J.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

There's only one hymn in the BCP, or at least the Ordinal - Veni creator spiritus in Bishop Cosin's translation. Other than as a substitute for the anthem in quires and places where they sing, there's no place for hymns.

I wish BCP enthusiasts would follow the BCP to the letter - no hymns, no sermon at Morning Prayer, all those exhortations and so on - and then we would realise how inadequate it is and why we need something else.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

It is permissible, and indeed assumed that people will sing metrical psalms before and after the service. Remember though that in 1662, only the Old Version of Sternhold & Hopkins was used, and sung the old way, lined out, very slowly and unaccompanied, much like modern Gaelic psalmody except in English. Tate & Brady wouldn't be written until the end of the century, and the move to speed things up, and use bands really belongs to the next century.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I wish BCP enthusiasts would follow the BCP to the letter - no hymns, no sermon at Morning Prayer, all those exhortations and so on - and then we would realise how inadequate it is and why we need something else.

I would actually quite love to follow the BCP to the letter. The Exhortations are lovely. But it seems to me that we can still have hymns. Adding those doesn't mean we have to take anything away from 1662.

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :

It was customary to sing metrical psalms before the sermon, though the rubrics do not mention this. This was when the minister was changing from surplice into Geneva gown. Holinshed's writings indicate that in some places in the 16th century there was a psalm after the sermon too, and this custom may have continued on into the 17th century. It was also customary in some places to sing a hymn during communion, though the rubrics do not mention it.

Wheatley's Rational Introduction has this note in its discussion of Morning and Evening Prayer canticles:

quote:
It ought to be noted, that both the sixty-seventh and hundredth psalms, being inserted in the Common Prayer Books [after the 2nd lesson] in the ordinary version, ought so to be used, and not to be sung in Sternhold and Hopkins,, or any other metre, as is now the custom in too many churches...

So clearly in some places the congregation did indeed sing these canticles in metrical paraphrase, something for which the rubric makes no provision.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I will certainly celebrate Communion according to the 1662 BCP on the 8/24 and also on 8/26. As to vestments, I will probably follow the custom of the time with one, and the rubrics with regard to the other. I am certain the leave the exhortation in, but whether I go with metrical psalms or hymns is yet to be decided.

PD

Posted by Chap (# 4926) on :

I was introduced to Anglicanism via the 1662 and quite like it for public and private times of worship. No luck in finding a 1662 service in the states but I look for them when visiting the UK. I use it for my own prayers here and simply replace prayers for our elected officials when I arrive at prayers for the monarchy.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chap:
I use it for my own prayers here and simply replace prayers for our elected officials when I arrive at prayers for the monarchy.

Oh, me too!
But I just ignore the Queen and The Royal Family bits and jump to A Prayer for the Clergy and People; being a "brash colonial" originally and now really at a loss when it comes to praying for *this* government (and the 5 before it). There were 2 or 3 years there I liked the govt but was not in the habit of daily prayer at the time. Poor them .

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I think it should be commemorated most certainly. After all, a considerable fuss was made of the AV anniversary and it could be argued that the BCP did more for literacy and education in the UK than the AV anyway. Swathes of the population for centuries heard its cadences. And the BCP (Coverdales) psalms are much better.

But it was and is not a book encased in stone. It has ALWAYS been adapted and I doubt has rarely been used to the letter - ever. So chasable and hymns quite in order.

It is in daily use in our cathedrals at Evensong and other times. Shipmates might like to attend an extra choral evensong.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

We still have Evensong almost every Sunday evening, so I guess it will be business as usual. (Sadly, the Psalms were changed to 'Common Worship' ones when our new vicar came; otherwise the service is the same as in the BCP.)

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

OMG how awful! The psalms are the very crown jewels of the BCP. He probably couldn't understand them, or hadn't done O level or GCSE English Lit.

If you want modern psalms there is TEC's BCP 1979 superb translation. The Americans seemingly can write better English than us these days.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

If you want modern psalms there is TEC's BCP 1979 superb translation. The Americans seemingly can write better English than us these days.

I thought the CW ones were based on TEC 1979.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

To an extent - but they are different. And, to my mind, not quite as good.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I've just done a quick comparison of psalm 43 in the 1662, TEC and CW versions. The two modern ones are clearly aiming to preserve much of Coverdale's rhythm and phrasing, and if anything CW moves slightly closer back to 1662. But I think it is clear that CW is an edited version of TEC. Maybe to its detriment, but they are not radically different.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Not radically different but slightly inferior. I am unsure of copyright, but it would have made sense for CW to have adopted TEC's psalter outright.

Is it Psalm 63 that begins 'For God alone by soul in silence waits' in the 1979 version? Beautiful. Often quoted (by me) as an example of modern liturgical translation at its best. Checked it in CW and - guess what? Edited and inferior. But this is a matter of taste.

For evensong the cadences of Coverdale are unsuppased. If you want Evening Prayer CW will do.

For private recitation anything in ONE BOOK as discussed in another thread elsewhere.

The welcome advent of Smartphones has made this possible as the CofE can't see to understand this. I once asked Brother Tristram SSF about thisand he just stood there with his mouth open unaware that it might be a good idea perhaps.

I note your choice of Psalm 43. Perhaps in your early days you said this at the foot of the altar before ascending?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

*For God alone my soul in silence waits.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Not radically different but slightly inferior. I am unsure of copyright, but it would have made sense for CW to have adopted TEC's psalter outright.

Is it Psalm 63 that begins 'For God alone by soul in silence waits' in the 1979 version? Beautiful. Often quoted (by me) as an example of modern liturgical translation at its best. Checked it in CW and - guess what? Edited and inferior. But this is a matter of taste.

Psalm 62. It is a matter of taste, but I tend to agree with you in this instance. Though I think some changes are an improvement and others not. I agree that it's difficult to see why they needed to alter it.

quote:

I note your choice of Psalm 43. Perhaps in your early days you said this at the foot of the altar before ascending?

Never as a priest, but I used to serve a rather deaf vicar who said alternate verses and began them before the server had finished his part because he couldn't hear it! The book more or less fell open at that page but I suppose I gravitated to the texts I knew best.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

I note your choice of Psalm 43. Perhaps in your early days you said this at the foot of the altar before ascending?
I used to serve a rather deaf vicar who said alternate verses and began them before the server had finished his part because he couldn't hear it! [/QB]

We had exactly the same experience then.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Same vicar maybe?!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

The welcome advent of Smartphones has made this possible as the CofE can't see to understand this.

The Cof E app for iPhone (and others?) links to M, E and Night Prayer in either the 1662 or CW versions. Complete with prescribed readings. (Yes, I know that 1662 doesn't have Night Prayer but I think they provide the so-called traditional language version from CW)

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Yes. Prior to the Smartphone the CofE had some kind of mental block about the convenience of the Office in one book.

Exceptions were the publication of the Cambridge Office Book (but an unwieldy size and shape to carry routinely on the Underground) and various unoffical publications including a shorter SSF office- again unoffical. There was the publication also of the Proposed Book together with the 1922 Book of Lessons.

I am pretty sure that the majority of those who say the daily office do so solitary. The CofE just didn't get it.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Exceptions were the publication of the Cambridge Office Book (but an unwieldy size and shape to carry routinely on the Underground) and...

Is that one also known as the Oxford & Cambridge Office Book, with the whole New English Bible with Apocrypha in it?

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

I am pretty sure that the majority of those who say the daily office do so solitary. The CofE just didn't get it.

In my experience, the 1662 Offices work splendidly for public use but less so for private use. The opposite is true for the offices from the Breviary.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Just dropping by to say that the Lord's Supper was duly celebrated this afternoon - a swelteringly hot day - with 15 persons present (none of whom had signified their names to the Curate beforehand.....).

Eastward facing, Father in alb, stole and light summer chasuble (he wished he'd just worn alb and stole), one server-cum-thurifer, and myself as Epistoler and chalice-bearer. Four hymns (all by George Herbert) and the Gloria to Merbecke. Lots of nice refreshing tea and cake to follow!

Once again, the Prayer Book Society was conspicuous by its absence...... [Roll Eyes]

Ian J.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

Once again, the Prayer Book Society was conspicuous by its absence......

Ian J.

Like those people who used to stage protests at the closure of local branch lines but never use the train themselves. [Biased]

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

I am pretty sure that the majority of those who say the daily office do so solitary. The CofE just didn't get it.
In my experience, the 1662 Offices work splendidly for public use but less so for private use. The opposite is true for the offices from the Breviary.

Agreed.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

That comment above about the Franciscan liturgist is hilarious! But yes, I often use the Breviary downloaded for the day to my smartphone. You can also get the mass reading and, indeed, homilies on the same app.

Nobody in their right mind can possibly use 1662 as is twice a day, given the alternatives about.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

The current diet in Thurible towers is CW MP (on smartphone) and BCP Evensong (from "O Lord, open thou our lips") with CW lectionary (at home). Were I to find an app that had BCP with CW lectionary, I'd be using that twice daily. (If it were to include the English Hymnal office hymns too, that'd be lovely.)

Thurible

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
That comment above about the Franciscan liturgist is hilarious!

What was that? Can't find it above.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
That comment above about the Franciscan liturgist is hilarious!
What was that? Can't find it above.

I think it's in this post. About Br. Tristram SSF.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0